kandi X-RAY | proof-of-work Summary
kandi X-RAY | proof-of-work Summary
Proof of Work with SHA256 and Bloom filter
Top functions reviewed by kandi - BETA
- MurmurHash .
- Removes two 32 - bit integers .
- Creates a new Verifier .
- compute the sum of a and b
- Write in buffer to a given buffer .
- Creates a new bloom filter
- Read from buffer at a given buffer .
- The 16 - bit implementation
- Creates a solver object
proof-of-work Key Features
proof-of-work Examples and Code Snippets
Trending Discussions on proof-of-work
My question is quite simple, why can't every node in the network follow the same principle for verifying transactions:
- Check that the transaction has a unique ID
- Check that the digital signature is correct using the public-key of the person sending money
No one can fake sending money on the behalf of someone else because they do not have that person's private-key and hence cannot create a valid digital signature for that transaction. No one can copy a previous transaction with a valid digital signature and broadcast to other nodes again because the ID must be unique.
This would also remove the notion of "blocks" in a "chain" and lead to a simple ledger.
I am aware that blockchains already implement this simple system of digital signatures. What I don't understand is, what is the necessity of further verification through proof-of-work? How could someone possibly create an illegitimate block (with one or more illegitimate transactions) which would require this further layer of security? What am I missing here?...
ANSWERAnswered 2021-Sep-27 at 14:54
You are missing double spending problem. If you have some amount of currency you can create unlimited amount of valid transactions. How you would know which one is correct?
This is why Proof-of-Work was implemented. It allows nodes to check which transactions are valid, and which try to double spend.
I am trying to send a get request to an api and get a response. My code is working fine but there is a problem with body of response, I am getting numbers before and after body of the response. Here is my code:...
ANSWERAnswered 2021-Jun-29 at 18:19
I am missing something but what?
You are not taking into account that these responses are using the
chunked transfer encoding format (via the
Transfer-Encoding: chunked header) to send the body data in chunks instead of a single byte stream, as you are expecting. See RFC 2616 Section 3.6.1 and RFC 7230 Section 4.1 for more details on the
What are they?
The numbers you are referring to are chunk size indicators.
In the 1st response shown, there is a single chunk of data whose byte size is
4a0(0x4A0 hex, 1184 decimal), followed by a terminating chunk whose byte size is
In the 2nd response shown, there is a single chunk of data whose byte size is
bcd(0xBCD hex, 3021 decimal), followed by a terminating chunk whose byte size is
The 0-length chunk ends the body data (there is no
Connection: close header present to end the responses otherwise).
You won't be able to use a simple
recv() loop to read
chunked bodies. You have to detect the
chunked header, and if present then read and parse each chunk individually. Read a chunk size, skip up to the following CRLF, read the specified number of bytes, skip up to the following CRLF. Repeat until a 0-length chunk is reached. Then read a set of trailing HTTP headers that may follow the chunks, overwriting any headers that you read before the body.
This is a script that is a simple proof of work and it's in md5 algo. Is there any way I can use it to transfer it to sha256?...
ANSWERAnswered 2021-Mar-14 at 10:03
from hashlib import sha256 string = "1" complete = False n = 0 while complete == False: curr_string = string + str(n) curr_hash = sha256(curr_string.encode()).hexdigest() n = n + 1 print(curr_hash + ' ' + curr_hash[:4])
As I sad in the title, why is IBFT not used as consensus protocol in public blockchains? After all, it is Byzantine-Fault-Tolerant and prevents forks, which is more than for example Proof-of-Work in Bitcoin does......
ANSWERAnswered 2021-Jan-18 at 11:11
The use of the IBFT consensus (as well as any consensus of the BFT group) involves the allocation of a special pool of validators, no more than a few dozen, which, by collecting explicit confirmations from each other, determine the validity of the block (or a separate transaction) and the possibility of its inclusion in the chain (for example, this is how Ripple works). For the public Ethereum, this, firstly, violates the very concept of equality of nodes in the network, and secondly, when trying to expand the pool of validators to a comparable number of nodes participating in the public Ethereum, it will inevitably lead to the collapse of the consensus process.
Therefore, in the public Ethereum, PoW is used, which does not imply the presence of "special" nodes and any explicit confirmations - the consensus is based on the fact that following the general rules: finding a "lucky" hash and adding a new block to the longest fork, the node has the highest probability of receiving block creation rewards.
No vulnerabilities reported
Reuse Trending Solutions
Subscribe to our newsletter for trending solutions and developer bootcamps
Share this Page